It wasn’t by design, it was simply by happenstance. I went straight from my collegiate training (B.S. Northwestern University, and M.A. The University of Minnesota) into 12 straight years of regional theatre, off-Broadway, followed by many years of film and TV work. While some of my friends and peers were immersed in classes in New York and LA, I was working onstage, sometimes forty – fifty weeks in a year, eight shows a week. I take nothing away from what they were learning. It’s not about that. They were immersed in theory. And I was immersed in the profession as it is practiced – in front of paying customers every night – twice on Wednesdays and Saturdays. My failures (and I had them) were in public, not in class.

It’s the difference between hitting golf balls on the driving range – and actually playing the game of golf.

By the way, I have also not studied with Milton Katselas, Larry Moss, William Esper, The Atlantic Acting School, Wyn Handman, Jeff Corey, or any of the other very well-known iconic acting teachers. As an acting teacher myself I am neither proud nor embarrassed by this – it’s not good or bad….it just is.

Unburdened by theories, dogma, or gurus – I had the “gift” of high pressure on-the-job training.

I raise the subject of training and methods because as a teacher I am frequently asked this important question: “What method do you teach? My answer? I teach the method that works for you; the working method you organically gravitate to. My job is to help you discover (or rediscover) the way of working that you instinctively favor.

Actors will learn a great deal from all of these approaches – including finding the approach that absolutely does not work for them. That also has real value. By trial and error we find our way – either in a class or in from the camera or audience.

And sometimes there can be a bit of “deprogramming” involved in trying to help a actor regain his or her creative footing, after going too deeply into one particular methodology that may not be working.

So, by design and intent I do NOT teach a one-size-fits-all approach. I do not have a dog in the dogma fight over acting methodologies. Everyone learns in different ways – how can one approach fit everyone and benefit everyone? I am 100% agnostic when it comes to these many different approaches. They are like diets; they ALL work – for a time. And, like diets, it comes own to what you can live with every day.

It is the artist’s responsibility (as well as the artist’s teacher) to discover what works for him or her every day – a working method they can live with, rely upon, and that feels right to them. They need to discover and curate that technique so that there is a level below which their work does not fall. Let’s be real: we are all not inspired 8 shows a week, or during all 28 takes of a scene from 4 angles. However, the technique we acquire by discovering our authentic working method allows each of these takes, each of these shows, to feel fresh and new. Every time.

Acting is (and has to be) a repeatable act: 8 shows a week, dozens of takes at a time on a particular scene. Creating the freshness and spontaneity required of each creative thrust is the result of having built a solid working technique.

Technique is the portal to artistry – it’s the house in which art lives:

Stradivarius violins are considered works of art. When he designed and built them I am sure he considered himself a craftsman first and foremost. His craft became elevated to such an extent that it transcended craft and became art.

Fred Astaire was a craftsman first. His technique as a dancer was so extraordinary that it transformed into art. But without the sweat and work of building his technique, the artistry would not have a place to live.

Picasso famously said: “The more technique you have, the less you have to worry about it. The more technique there is, the less there is.”

Many of these famous acting teachers deserve to be on the “Mount Rushmore of Acting Teachers” (if such a thing existed) with their heads carved into stone, staring out to the horizon with wisdom etched in their features. But as important as they were, we worship them at our peril. Yes, they all formulated seminal ideas about the craft and art of acting. They were absolutely relevant 70-80 ago, when these schools of thought germinated. But in many important ways much of this is not relevant to the profession as it is practiced today. We’ve simply moved beyond it. The concept of realistic acting and behavior is like software that comes pre-loaded in the brains and hearts of young artists. Sixty years of realistic film and TV acting permeating the culture has resulted in that becoming part of the creative DNA of todays actors. So, it’s often not realism that’s the challenge. It’s passion and imagination that’s sometimes lacking in today’s young artists, as they occasionally confuse realistic behavior with acting.

Our profession (on the film and TV side of the equation) is an identity-based art form, yet many of these older training modes are about convincingly becoming someone else. But in today’s world they are, for the most part, interested in YOU as the filter for the character. Your life walks into the room with you, so get acquainted with yourself in a dynamic way so that becomes part of your work. Identity often trumps talent. That’s not right or wrong…it just is. Fully developed talent is simply expected and assumed in the professional ranks.

I’m absolutely certain that studying with these legendary acting teachers might have taught me a great deal. No doubt, I missed out on some amazing experiences. But I learned on the job, by the seat of my pants sometimes, and it gave me a practical clear approach to the work.

For me it’s about strategy: in the scene, the play (or film), the career, and the life.

Acting is first and foremost a craft. And….if the craft is sturdy and sound, it becomes the house in which your art can live.

Then, it’s about the marriage of that with YOU. The fully examined you.

I had everything I needed in life experience, stage, radio & television before falling prey to one of the latter mentioned Los Angeles acting teacher’s beholden “iconic” methods, and it was utter rubbish. It stripped me of all the strengths and natural instincts I had going for me; programming me with A.I. After trusting my instincts and leaving to live and learn on many other paths, I found myself again. And through validated expression, trial and error by doing on the job, and taking Ng what I liked, leaving the rest, in other teaching forums, I found me. Authentically.

Cheers to you my friend for always being a straight shooter, an inspiration, and equally insightful.

Sincerely, Quinton Flynn

PS – If what Michael wrote is confusing to the reader, don’t worry you’ll get there. If you, the reader, find fault, a difference of opinion, or take offense in any way to what Michael has written, it’s okay for you to be wrong. Breathe, re-read it slowly, look inside yourself at who you really are and do what you like to do. Play. Let go. Train as much as you like, have all your tools, then transcend. “Fugetaboutit!”

Great piece Michael . Acting’s an form is at personal as it gets so why should
an actor stick in one crayon in the box? One has to find out what works for them to get to the artful truth of what they are playing in an imaginary world, AND to be able to do that performance after performance , take after take, freshly and making it look spontaneous.
That’s where technique come in as you have said.

There’s a smorgasbord of methods and acting gurus to teach them. Which is great to have choices to find out what works for one. I have often wondered if acting isn’t really taught but more guided.A good teacher is a great guide.

Years ago I was in acting class, when I was approached by a classmate who praised my work in a film I did a few years earlier . The classmate asked me how
I was able to do that work without the knowing the “method” we were both learning at the time.
I was flattered but baffled by that question and had no answer really except to mutter something about imagination.
My point being is we all have pretty much all the ingredients there to begin with.
A good teacher can bring out these very special personal qualities to the actors’ consciousness providing the actor a construct to work from.

Back to technique ,I’m reminded of Robin Williams character in “Birdcage” who exasperatedly shows a dancer how to move in rehearsing a dancer number… He prances around mimicking the styles of great choreographers..”It’ easy.” he says..”.All you do is a little TWYLA ,TWYLA, TWYLA, MARTHA GRAHAM,MARTHA GRAHAM MARTHA GRAHAM, FOSSE, FOSSE,FOSSE and then, you throw it all away…”

Yes, Michael. And I’ll add an amen to that. You make all the points worth making… there is no method that works for everyone. How could there be? It was a preposterous notion then when some of the giants to which you refer (and yeah, they were giants) were in their hey day … and it’s still a preposterous notion now. Keep writing.

I’m going to get on my soapbox for a few minutes.
Before anyone started teaching acting, the way we learned was by watching the pros from the wings, we’d hold a spear for a season, and then as we learned more, we got to go out and act. Like most crafts, you apprenticed, learned by watching and doing. Learn, repeat, and do it over and over.
I agree with much of what you’ve come to realize about the practice of the craft of acting. And I agree with you that acting requires a solid technique that can be repeated.
But, you don’t say anywhere what that technique is? I do know, as you point out, that good dancers and musicians have developed a craft that they practice for a lifetime in hopes of being an artist. But at the root, it is all about learning the elements of the craft and practicing it over and over. So what’s the difference between those craftspeople/artists and actors? For one, since it’s possible to learn lines and speak them out loud without any training, there is a mistaken idea that all it takes to be an actor is to be able to walk and talk. And language is another difference. They (musicians and dancers) have an accepted language of their craft. All trained dancers know what an adagio is; all trained musicians know what allegro means. But ask five actors what is an action, and you might get five different answers. Stanislavski used certain language in class and rehearsal, and when it was translated and adapted by Adler, Meisner, Strasberg et al, they all used words that resonated with them. So we now have much misunderstanding of what it takes to learn acting technique.

I’m not sure you really understand the basic fundamentals of Stanislavski’s intended course of study for the actor.
It’s not about theory or some mystery. All those “legendary” American acting teachers that you mentioned are derivatives. They picked and chose what made sense to them personally, but at the core, they all based their methods, systems, techniques or whatever else they named them on K.S. and the work he started a hundred years ago.

At the very foundation of Stanislavski’s work is something I think you agree with, bringing our authentic self to our work. The central question in the work: “If I were in these circumstances, how would I behave?” The “Magic If” is what Stanislavski called it. The only behavior that becomes acceptable is my own truthful and authentic behavior. Me. My own opinions, my attitudes, and my values become the springboard for my imagination. I imagine how I would behave if I were that soldier in the 17th century, or that truck driver from Brooklyn, or that alien from another galaxy in the 23rd century. The story is told through me, using me. I use the only four tools an actor actually has: mind, body, voice and emotion. I have no guitar or easel or computer available to me. He had actors learning voice, speech, movement, dance and relaxation methods. They did exercises to strengthen their concentration, powers of observation and their ability to communicate. There were exercises for them to develop imagination, emotional spontaneity, and the ability to express themselves instinctively and moment to moment.

A BIG problem in actor training is that so many acting teachers don’t have a clue what Strasberg or Meisner taught, and most dismiss Stanislavski because it was such a long time ago. It’s true that Lee Strasberg tended to philosophize and that Stanislavski was sort of a rambling writer. So, many teachers think rambling on about abstract theory is what Sandy did or Lee did, so that’s what they do. Those classes are a waste of life and can even be dangerous. Even good teachers go on and on about acting (I know I love talking with actors about acting, and it’s hard to shut me up). But that’s not only what those great teachers did. They wanted, like Stanislavski before them, to teach actors to have a reliable, workable technique that they can use to bring the imaginary work to life. Authentic behavior, not fake performing. And his desire was to develop a scientific technique for actors to study.

You’re right that there is no single way to do our work. No “one size fits all”. We should try every way to expand and strengthen our abilities. But if we don’t work and work and work at it, we can never expect more than mediocrity. Nobody becomes a great actor by just winging it. We have to work at it until it becomes effortless. All the preparation is left behind, and we just tell the story. Or as Sanford Meisner said: “Acting is behaving truthfully under imaginary circumstances”.

And finally, the ideas formulated 70-80 years ago were formulated to create authentic, human life on stage. Their “concept of realistic acting” was exactly the same as ours.

I’ve enjoyed taking the time to think about and articulate my thoughts and feelings. Thanks.

Dear Jordan – Thanks for you comment on my blog about training. I appreciate your taking the time to do so.

In answer to a few of your observations:

1. You are correct – I do not spell out the technique I discuss in this post. This is, after all, a blog. That would require a book. To be clear, my personal approach (and teaching approach) is fairly technical and text driven. But I could not take the time and space to spell all that out in a blog post. Like KS, my initial approach is to “pretend that what is happening is happening to you.” Then, it’s about smart strategy within the scene and being sure all your skills up to snuff – vocal, physical, etc. The best (and most successful) actors I have worked with in the past few years have been trained in the UK and Australia – many of them being Americans. The training is quite technical, and rigorous – yet all the ones I’ve personally worked with are also quite clear about their identity. It has not been subsumed by too much training. I’m sure there are exceptions to this, but I’ve been impressed. There’s little of the psychological claptrap, and more of the skills-based training that will serve the artist.

2. Contrary to your thought here, I do understand much of what KS was writing and talking about. I’ve read quite a bit. I simply did not address it in this post. Again, that’s another book: discussing how the American acting gurus subverted his teachings. I did not see a reason to address that in this post – since the actors I’m discussing did not study with him – but the DID study with acolytes of these famous American acting teachers. As a teacher I have deprogrammed more than a few people who’ve been completely messed up by some of these derivative “schools” of thought and theory. I find it’s sometimes better to have someone with no training than bad training – but with a rich imagination, clear sense of self, and a curiosity and desire to act. I have had some real success with people in that category.

3.You are right about the fact that other artists have more definable skills. There are accepted technical hurdles they have to achieve. The soprano can either hit that note five times, or she can’t. The violinist can either play that concerto, or he can’t. There’s a verifiable technical level they have to achieve before they can move on. Acting is often about opinions. Opinions are currency among teachers, and students alike. I hate it. I actually hate most acting classes, because it’s a lot of hot air. I only started teaching 6 years ago – and I decided to create a class that I would have liked to go to. Also, my students are (in general) quite busy in the film and TV world – where their identity comes into play in a more profound way than it does in theatre work – although almost all of them have extensive theatre training.

Bottom line: With talent taken off the table because in the professional ranks talent is simply assumed (even though we’ve all seen actors whose success is mystifying):

Theatre is about what you can do, and film (and TV) are about who you are.

I saw no one teaching to that point of view. All these teachers I reference, and all the training is theatre-based. And the rewardable virtue in the theatre is to disappear and convincingly become someone else! Film is more about YOU as the vessel. It’s easier to teach a time-tested theatre-based approach, but it’s more fun and interesting for me and my students (and clients) to think more expansively than that.

I enjoyed you getting on your “soapbox” (as you said), and really appreciate that you’ve taken the time to thoughtfully respond.